↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the impact of human genome annotation choice on RNA-seq expression estimates

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
33 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessing the impact of human genome annotation choice on RNA-seq expression estimates
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-14-s11-s8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Po-Yen Wu, John H Phan, May D Wang

Abstract

Genome annotation is a crucial component of RNA-seq data analysis. Much effort has been devoted to producing an accurate and rational annotation of the human genome. An annotated genome provides a comprehensive catalogue of genomic functional elements. Currently, at least six human genome annotations are publicly available, including AceView Genes, Ensembl Genes, H-InvDB Genes, RefSeq Genes, UCSC Known Genes, and Vega Genes. Characteristics of these annotations differ because of variations in annotation strategies and information sources. When performing RNA-seq data analysis, researchers need to choose a genome annotation. However, the effect of genome annotation choice on downstream RNA-seq expression estimates is still unclear. This study (1) investigates the effect of different genome annotations on RNA-seq quantification and (2) provides guidelines for choosing a genome annotation based on research focus.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 6%
Japan 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 90 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 27%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 6 6%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 8 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 48 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 24%
Computer Science 11 10%
Engineering 4 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 8 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 May 2017.
All research outputs
#640,496
of 15,920,653 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#67
of 5,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,868
of 190,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,920,653 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,768 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 190,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them